Roman Catholicism holds
that at the last supper (or Eucharist, which means thanksgiving), the
Lord's words, “This is my body which is given for you: this do
in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying,
This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you”
(Lk. 22:19b, 20), means that the Lord was literally giving them His
body and blood, soul and Divinity, to eat(!).

It should also be said
that it may be possible to hold that in some “mysterious
manner” the Lord' is uniquely present in the commemoration of
the Lord supper, and be over all sound in the faith, or even for some
believers to continue in a belief in transubstantiation (at least for
a time), but not make the eating of it a means of merited (by grace)
salvation, as Rome's doctrine of it does, by such official statements
as in CANONS CONCERNING JUSTIFICATIONCHAPTER XVI:

“...
we must believe that nothing further is wanting to those justified[by baptism] to prevent
them from being considered to have, by
those very workswhich
have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to
the state of this life and to have truly
merited eternal life,
to be obtained in its [due] time, provided they depart [this life] in
grace...”

That aspect is another
subject, but here may we seek to be true worshipers, who worship God
in Spirit and in Truth, for it is such that the Father seeks, (Jn.
4:23, 24: which i must seek more to be).

We should first begin
with official statements of doctrine on the Eucharist in which i will
make a few pertinent remarks.

In Her 1992 Catechism
(from the Vatican Archives1), Chapter 3, Part 2, Article
3, “The sacrament of the Eucharist, and #1353, Rome describes
what happens during her “Mass:”

“..the
Church asks the Father to send his Holy Spirit (or the power of his
blessing178)
on the bread and wine, so that by His power they may become the body
and blood of Jesus Christ and so that those who take part in the
Eucharist may be one body and one spirit... “ It continues, “In
the institution narrative, the power of the words and the action of
Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit, make sacramentally present
under the species of bread and wine Christ's body and blood, His
sacrifice offered on the cross once for all.

According to Rome, her
sacrifice is not simply a holy memorial of the Lord's death, which
signifies our fellowship with Him and each other, rather she claims
it is the actual consumption of the Lord's literal body, and which
actually has power to expiate, atone or make amends for sin:

#1365:
“In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave
up for us on the cross, the very blood which he "poured out for
many for the forgiveness of sins."186 1374 (b): “In
the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood,
together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and,
therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially
contained."200

#1393
“Holy Communion separates us from sin. The body of Christ we
receive in Holy Communion is "given up for us," and the
blood we drink 'shed for the many for the forgiveness of sins.' For
this reason the Eucharist cannot unite us to Christ without at the
same time cleansing us from past sins and preserving us from future
sins:”

#1367
The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one
single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now
offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on
the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And
since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the
same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar
of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . .
this sacrifice is truly propitiatory [possessing power to atone for
sins]."188

She also effectively
teaches that to consume the flesh of Jesus is ingest the flesh of
Mary:

“Moreover,
one must remember that the Blood of Christ shed for our sake and
those members in which He offers to His Father the wounds He
received, the price of our liberty, are no other than the flesh and
blood of the virgin, since the flesh of Jesus is the flesh of Mary,
and however much it was exalted in the glory of His resurrection,
nevertheless the nature of His flesh derived from Mary remained and
still remains the same (de Assumpt. B. V. M., c.v., among the Opera
S. Aug).” — Fidentem Piumque Animum - On the Rosary;
Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, September 20, 1896

Rome further asserts that
her practice also can aid souls who exist in an unBiblical place
called Purgatory:

#1371”
“The Eucharistic sacrifice is also offered for the faithful
departed who "have died in Christ but are not yet wholly
purified,"191 so that they may be able to enter into
the light and peace of Christ:”

#1405
There is no surer pledge or dearer sign of this great hope in the new
heavens and new earth "in which righteousness dwells,"245
than the Eucharist. Every time this mystery is celebrated, "the
work of our redemption is carried on" and we "break the one
bread that provides the medicine of immortality, the antidote for
death, and the food that makes us live for ever in Jesus Christ."246

#1414
As sacrifice, the Eucharist is also offered in reparation for the
sins of the living and the dead and to obtain spiritual or temporal
benefits from God.

#1376
The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring:
"Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body
that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been
the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now
declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there
takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the
substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance
of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy
Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called
transubstantiation."204
(cf.
1413).

Rome also seeks to invoke
Jn. 6:53 (Article 1384) to support their argument, which by
implication would require receiving the Lord's supper to be
regenerated. She also makes it one of her sacraments whereby souls
are said to be able to increase their justified position before God
(received at “baptismal” sprinkling, usually as infants),
by doing works which are meritorious for salvation.

This requires the
institution of a separate class of priests, by which to effect the
substantiation she teaches.

#
1337: "...thereby He constituted them priests of the New
Testament."162

#1410:
“It is Christ himself, the eternal high priest of the New
Covenant who, acting through the ministry of the priests, offers the
Eucharistic sacrifice. And it is the same Christ, really present
under the species of bread and wine, who is the offering of the
Eucharistic sacrifice.

And lest any assume that
the transubstantiation of Rome supposes takes place also happens when
those who are not of Rome (except her cousin, the Eastern
churches. see 1399) celebrate the Lord's supper, #1369b states,

“Let
only that Eucharist be regarded as legitimate, which is celebrated
under [the presidency of] the bishop or him to whom he has entrusted
it.”189

#1411Only
validly ordained priests can preside at the Eucharist and consecrate
the bread and the wine so that they become the Body and Blood of the
Lord.

Finally, Rome makes
mystical claims for her Eucharist, but which are not substantiated by
empirical proof, which is relevant considering Her claims that in her
Eucharist

And
that in partaking of her Eucharist, “Christ is consumed, the
mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to
us.'"133(#1323).
(www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm)

Regarding
such claims of “supercharging” souls, which are often
repeated, while our primary concern here is the issue of Scriptural
warrant, formal study after study also reveal that, rather than
Catholics having their “minds filled with grace,” they
typically evidence far, far less fruits
of regeneration,
in both spiritual and temporal realms, than her evangelical
counterparts, who believe “the gospel of grace,” and hold
that the Lord's supper is a holy memorial, but not the literal
consumption of the Lord''s body. ^

The
Lord's supper in the synoptic gospels

In dealing with the
meaning of the Lord's supper, we must first examine the narrative
accounts of the Lord's supper in the gospels and in 1Corinthinas 11,
and below are 2 charts, each comparing the 4 accounts, The 1st
chart uses the King James Version (KJV), which is the more literal
and faithful translation (Rome's Catechism in English uses the
Revised Standard Version). The 2nd chart uses the official
Bible of Rome for America, the New American Bible (NAB).Yet as one
can see, there is no real difference that would affect
interpretation, except that the NAB
does not tell you which words were supplied, which the KJV does by
way ofitalics.

King
James Version

Matthew
26:26-29

Mark
14:22-25

Luke
22:19-20

1
Corinthians 11:23-26

Comments

26
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread,and blessed
it, and brake it, and
gave itto the disciples, and said,Take, eat; this is my body.

27
And he took the cup,and gave thanks, and gave itto them, saying,Drink ye all of it;

28
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for
many for the remission of sins.

29
But I say unto you, I will not drinkhenceforth ofthis fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it
new with you in my Father's kingdom.

22
And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake
it, and gave
to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.

23
And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks,
he gave itto them:and they all drank of it.

24
And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament,
which is shed for many.

25
Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the
fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the
kingdom of God.

19
And he tookbread, and gave thanks, and brake
it, and gave
unto them, saying,This is my body which is given for
you: this do in remembrance of me.

20
Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup
is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

23
For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto
you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was
betrayed took bread:

24
And when he had given thanks, he brake it,and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for
you: this do in remembrance of me.

25
After the same manner also he took the cup,when he
had supped, saying,This cup is the new testament in my
blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of
me.

26
For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye
do show the Lord's death till he come.

The
Lord took the unleavened (leaven representing sin in the O.T:
Ex. 12:19; 34:25) bread which they used at the celebration of
the Passover (Ex. 12:15-20; 23:15), which was made into thin
cakes, and easily broken and distributed.

Blessed.
Giving thanks for food is
what is usually used (Lk. 9:16; Jn. 6:11; Acts 27:35; Rm. 14:6;
1Cor. 10:30), as it is in Luke 22:19 here.

Blessed
it. But the blessing, or
giving thanks, was not necessarily or at least primarily that of
the food itself, (the word “it” is not in the
Biblical manuscripts, but is added by translators as an aid to
understanding – the best they see it – and so such
supplied words are always in italics). The Biblical
admonition is to bless (or give thanks to) the Lord “Who
satisfieth thy mouth with good” (Ps.
103:1-5 cf. Dt. 8:10); “For the earth is the
Lord's, and the fulness thereof” (1Cor. 10:26, 28), and
which blessing is after Jewish custom. However, as 1Tim. 4:4 may
indicate, we can certainly ask God to also bless what goes into
our mouth, to our health, and to His glory.

“Take
eat, this is My body” is no more to be taken literally
than “drink this cup,” or that the lamb itself in
Exo. 12:11 is literally the Lord’s Passover, rather than
representing the occasion of His passover in judgment, in which
would pass over their houses.

The
Lord's statement, “I will not drink henceforth of this
fruit of the vine, indicates that the wine was still wine.

New
American Bible — official Roman Catholic version for
America

Matthew
26:26-29

Mark
14:22-25

Luke
22:19-20

1
Corinthians 11

26
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing,
broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, "Take and
eat; this is my body."

27
Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying,
"Drink from it, all of you,

28
for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on
behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.

29
I tell you, from now on I shall not drink this fruit of the
vine until the day when I drink it with you new in the
kingdom of my Father."

22
While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing,
broke it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take it; this is
my body."

23
Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and
they all drank from it.

24
He said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which
will be shed for many.

25
Amen, I say to you, I shall not drink again the fruit of the
vine until the day when I drink it new in the kingdom of
God."

9
Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and said,"Take
this and share it among yourselves;

18
for I tell you (that) from this time on I shall not drink of
the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes."

19
Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave
it to them, saying, "This is my body, which will be given
for you; do this in memory of me."

20
And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This
cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.

23
For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that
the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread,

24
and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, "This
is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me."

25
In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This
cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you
drink it, in remembrance of me."

26
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you
proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. ^

Exegesis

Focusing first on the
institution of the Lord's supper, “Take eat, this is My body”
and “Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new
testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins”
(Mt. 26:26-29; Mk. 14:22-25; Lk. 22:19,20), Luke and Paul record the
latter as “This cup is the new testament in my blood”
(Lk. 22:20; 1Cor. 11:25) (Note: careful study of the the
duplicate accounts of the words of Jesus on earth indicates that
these were not always a verbatim record, yet they are nonetheless
His words, as Jesus spoke by the Spirit and it was the Holy Spirit
who inspired what was written in Scripture, and under Jesus
direction. He can thus recast His words in duplicate accounts, as is
also seen in Old Testament prophecies reiterated in the New
Testament, to give a fuller but by no means contradictory meaning,
and enable correct interpretation.) Grammatically, there is
nothing unique about the word eat, which can be used for literal
food as well as metaphorically for eating “spiritual manna”
(Rev. 2:7,17) Likewise, the word “this” (G5124) in “this
is my body” is normally used for literal things but is clearly
used for the spiritual “cup” the LORD had to drink to
make atonement for the sins of man, (Mt. 26:39) and for the cup
which was the New Testament in His blood, (1Cor. 11:25) while the
phrase “this is” (G5124, G2076) is used together for the
spiritual “work” of believing on Jesus. (Jn. 6:29)

Contextually, the LORD
is speaking to Jews, not pagans, and the Jews (and Greeks, which
influenced Jews during the time of Christ, and whose language was
common) were well acquainted with the use of symbolic language, with
the O.T. often speaking of eating in a figurative manner. When the
fearful Israelites exclaimed that the Promised Land was “a
land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof;” or when
Joshua exhorted the Israelites, “Only rebel not ye against the
LORD, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread
for us” (Num. 13:32; 14:9), it is not to be supposed that the
land or the Israelites would become cannibals. And when Jeremiah
proclaims, Your words were found. and I ate them. and
your word was to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart"
(Jer. 15:16), or Ezekiel is told, "eat this scroll, and
go, speak to the house of Israel" (Ezek. 3:1), or (in a phrase
most similar to the Lord's supper) John is commanded, "Take the
scroll ... Take it and eat it" (Rev. 10:8-9 ), then it
is not speaking of literal eating. And it is certain that
cannibalism was not looked upon favorably in Israel, and is only
portrayed negatively, even metaphorically, as David declared, "When
the wicked, even mine enemies and my foes, came upon me to eat up
my flesh, they stumbled and fell." (Psa 27:2)

Drinking blood is also
be shown to be metaphorical in 2Sam. 23:15-17, wherein we read, “And
David longed, and said, Oh that one would give me drink of the water
of the well of Bethlehem, which is by the gate! And the three mighty
men brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of
the well of Bethlehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and
brought it to David: nevertheless he would not drink thereof, but
poured it out unto the LORD. And he said, Be it far from me, O LORD,
that I should do this: is not this the blood of the men that went
in jeopardy of their lives? therefore he would not drink it.
These things did these three mighty men.” Here, David equates
the water obtained at the peril of the men's life (blood
representing life: Lv. 17:11), with that of their lives themselves.
In like use of metaphor, the Lord Jesus in the Lord's supper
accounts is holding up bread and wine as a “picture””
of Himself, illustrating that just as such life physical giving
substances could be broken and poured out, so would His body be
“broken,” and His precious sinless blood be “poured
out “ in offering a ransom for many (Mk. 10:45). Praise God
for “so great salvation” (Heb. 2:3), at so great a
price, which ought to constrain so great a response of consecration
and faith in love (and i come short. May the Lord work in me to
perfection, with mercy. Amen).

Consistent with the
strict literalism employed in assuming that since the Lord said
“Take eat, this is My body” (Mt. 26:26), then it had to
be His body, then one can also assert that when He said, “This
cup is the new testament in my blood” (Lk. 22:20), then this
would have Jesus commanding that the cup itself to be drunken, but
which is non-sense. And just as the cup represented that which was
in it, so the bread itself represented the Lord's body, rather than
being transubstantiated into it, and which is manifestly consistent
with Biblical Jewish as well as Greek allegorical usage (covered
more under John 6).

In the larger context of
the Bible, we see that doctrinally, the Jews were strictly enjoined
NEVER to eat blood, the penalty being to be cut off from God's
people, “And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel,
or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner
of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth
blood, and will cut him off from among his people” (Lv. 17:0).
And one of the few basic Old Testament dietary laws that were
enjoined upon converted Gentiles under the New Covenant was that
which forbade eating blood. (Act 21:25) It is thus incongruous that
the apostles, who were not above voicing concerns when troubled
about things, even at the last supper, (it is I?), and especially
Peter, would not protest a command to literally drink Jesus blood.
Peter, the must vocal of all, was still following Kosher Law as far
after the Lord's supper as Acts 10 (9-16), in which he protested
“Not so, Lord” (an oxymoron). How much more he, or one
of the apostles would have been aghast at the thought of actually
ingesting the Lord's corporeal flesh and drinking His blood! Peter
did not even (initially) want the Lord to wash his feet, (Jn. 13:6)
and so protested it, and would surely be expected to do the same in
response to being called to eat Jesus flesh

Another
argument might be that in Mt. 26:29 and Mk. 14:25, the Lord referred
to what had been drank, not as His blood, but as the “this
fruit of the vine”, which He would join His disciples in
drinking in His Father's kingdom. (cf. Lk. 22:18,22,30) And it is
not tenable that Jesus would be drinking His own blood then.
However, the chronology of Luke 22:17-20 does place the saying
beforehand.

Directly related to the
words of the Lord in the parallel account of the Lord's supper in
Lk. 22:20, are Moses words in the institution of the Law of O.T.
“And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and
said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made
with you concerning all these words” (Ex. 24:8), and their
reiteration in Heb 9:20, “Saying, This is the blood of the
testament which God hath enjoined unto you.” Both covenants
must be, and were, instituted by blood, but to be consistent with
the idea that the participants in the New Covenant were actually
drinking blood, would require that the participants in the Old
Covenant did the same, which is clearly disallowed (see #1). Thus it
is more reasonable that the bread and wine represented the Lord's
body and blood, which were to be broken, and shed, respectively.

Theologically, as major
doctrines must have fairly abundant Scriptural substantiation, and
this would surely be a major doctrine according to Rome, then we
must expect to see some clear theology on the manner of
transubstantiation, and provision for a separate Levitical class of
priests, which would be empowered to effect this presumed
supernatural exchange of substances. But no where do we truly see
such, as the Lord's supper is not even explicitly mentioned once in
all the 28 chapters of the life of the early churches and the
apostles (the possible references in Acts, that of breaking bread
together, is only mentioned 4 times, with not even a hint of
priestly consecration and transubstantiation ala Rome). Meanwhile,
the only places we see in the rest of the N.T. which deal with the
Lord's supper do not provide a theology of transubstantiation.

In addition, nowhere is
there a separate ordained class of priests ruling over the “laity,”
but under the New Covenant all believers makes up a general
priesthood (1Pt. 2:9). The word for priest hiereus [G2409] is
different than the word for Apostle [G652=ambassador], Elder
[G4245=old, mature] or Bishop [G1985=overseer] or Pastor
G4166=shepherd], as one or more of their primary functions is
different. A priest was uniquely ordained to offer up literal
sacrifices for sins (Lv. 3:1-5ff; Ezek. 43:27), and which Rome
supposes they do in offering up the Mass, which is held to have the
power to expiate sins, through an ongoing literal sacrifice in which
they suppose they turn wine and bread into the Lord's corporeal
flesh and blood to be consumed. However, the Lord is not turned into
bread, nor is a separate class (from other believers) of sacerdotal
priests ordained for such, as instead of clergy being called
priests, what the Lord ordained to be overseers of His flock,
besides the initial apostles, were Bishop/Elders (same office: Titus
1:5-7; cf. 1Pt. 5:1), which collectively are called Pastors (Eph.
4:11). The job of a Bishop/Elder or pastor is to be an overseer, and
to feed the flock with the Word of God, (1Pet. 5:2) and which flock
collectively is to offer the sacrifice of praise, (Heb. 13:15) and
individually their bodies as living sacrifices for the LORD to use,
as instruments of righteousness. (Rm. 12:1) More on this here.

In addition,
transubstantiation, in which the substance of bread and wine is said
to be "really" changed, so that the bread and wine become
the Lord's body and blood, though the sensory aspects of the earthly
elements remain the same, is contrary to the miracles which the Lord
and His followers did. The water actually became wine in John 2, and
it tasted like it, and sick people who were supernaturally made well
knew it, and it was apparent, (Acts 3) but such was not by
transubstantiation as defined by Rome. Nor is this the case in
regeneration, which creates a new heart. Even in the Lord's
incarnation, it was Christ being made in the flesh (Jn. 1:14; Phil.
2:7), but not a transubstantiated way, or in any way that He was not
literally flesh and blood, while being “God manifest in the
flesh” (1Tim. 3:16). In addition, empirical evidence fails to
manifest that Biblical fruits of regeneration are realized more by
those who eat of the table of Rome versus those who dine at the
table of the word in evangelical churches.

A miracle which
transubstantiation claims to be would also be contrary to the Lord's
incarnation in a different way (nor Rome does see it as the same),
in which He humbled Himself to take upon flesh, even of the “seed
of Abraham” (Jn. 1:14; Heb. 2:16), and as such, He was
restricted to being in one place at one time. No where in the Lord's
multitudinous miracles do we see anything approaching Him being
literally physically in two places at once. But according to the
theory of transubstantiation, at the Lord's Supper the Lord Jesus
was both sitting before them as well as being digested in their
stomachs. Such a notion surpasses simple absurdity, and actually
becomes blasphemous!

Further selected
commentary from men more learned me than i on the verses at subject
is
offered below, by the grace of God.

Barnes

Clarke

Gill

TSK

Mat
26:26-30 -

See
also Mark 14:22-26; Luke 22:15-20; 1Cor. 11:23-25.

Jesus
took bread - That is, the unleavened bread which they used at
the celebration of the Passover, made into thin cakes, easily
broken and distributed.

And
blessed it - Or sought a blessing on it; or “gave thanks”
to God for it. The word rendered “blessed” not
unfrequently means “to give thanks.” Compare Luke
9:16 and John 6:11. It is also to be remarked that some
manuscripts have the word rendered “gave thanks,”
instead of the one translated “blessed.” It appears
from the writings of Philo and the Rabbis that the Jews were
never accustomed to eat without giving thanks to God and seeking
his blessing. This was especially the case in both the bread and
the wine used at the Passover.

And
brake it - This “breaking” of the bread represented
the sufferings of Jesus about to take place - his body “broken”
or wounded for sin. Hence, Paul 1Cor. 11:24 adds, “This is
my body which is broken for you;” that is, which is about
to be broken for you by death, or wounded, pierced, bruised, to
make atonement for your sins.

This
is my body - This represents my body. This broken bread shows
the manner in which my body will be broken; or this will serve
to recall my dying sufferings to your remembrance. It is not
meant that his body would be literally “broken” as
the bread was, but that the bread would be a significant emblem
or symbol to recall to their recollection his sufferings. It is
not improbable that our Lord pointed to the broken bread, or
laid his hands on it, as if he had said, “Lo, my body!”
or, “Behold my body! - that which “represents”
my broken body to you.” This “could not” be
intended to mean that that bread was literally his body. It was
not. His body was then before them “living.” And
there is no greater absurdity than to imagine his “living
body” there changed at once to a “dead body,”
and then the bread to be changed into that dead body, and that
all the while the “living” body of Jesus was before
them.

Yet
this is the absurd and impossible doctrine of the Roman
Catholics, holding that the “bread” and “wine”
were literally changed into the “body and blood” of
our Lord. The language employed by the Saviour was in accordance
with a common mode of speaking among the Jews, and exactly
similar to that used by Moses at the institution of the Passover
Ex. 12:11; “It” - that is, the lamb - “is the
Lord’s Passover.” That is, the lamb and the feast
“represent” the Lord’s “passing over”
the houses of the Israelites. It serves to remind you of it. It
surely cannot be meant that that lamb was the literal “passing
over” their houses - a palpable absurdity - but that it
represented it. So Paul and Luke say of the bread, “This
is my body broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.”
This expresses the whole design of the sacramental bread. It is
to call to “remembrance,” in a vivid manner, the
dying sufferings of our Lord. The sacred writers, moreover,
often denote that one thing is represented by another by using
the word is. See Mat. 13:37; “He that soweth the good seed
is the Son of man” - that is, represents the Son of man.
Gen. 41:26; “the seven good kine are seven years” -
that is, “represent” or signify seven years. See
also John 15:1, John 15:5; Gen. 17:10. The meaning of this
important passage may be thus expressed: “As I give this
broken bread to you to eat, so will I deliver my body to be
afflicted and slain for your sins.”

This
is my body - Here it must be observed that Christ had nothing in
his hands, at this time, but part of that unleavened bread which
he and his disciples had been eating at supper, and therefore he
could mean no more than this, viz. that the bread which he was
now breaking represented his body, which, in the course of a few
hours, was to be crucified for them. Common sense,
unsophisticated with superstition and erroneous creeds, - and
reason, unawed by the secular sword of sovereign authority,
could not possibly take any other meaning than this plain,
consistent, and rational one, out of these words. “But,”
says a false and absurd creed, “Jesus meant, when he said,
Hoc Est Corpus Meum, This is my body, and Hic Est Calix
Sanguinis Mei, This is the chalice of my blood, that the bread
and wine were substantially changed into his body, including
flesh, blood, bones, yea, the whole Christ, in his immaculate
humanity and adorable divinity!” And, for denying this,
what rivers of righteous blood have been shed by state
persecutions and by religious wars! Well it may be asked, “Can
any man of sense believe, that, when Christ took up that bread
and broke it, it was his own body which he held in his own
hands, and which himself broke to pieces, and which he and his
disciples ate?” He who can believe such a congeries of
absurdities, cannot be said to be a volunteer in faith; for it
is evident, the man can neither have faith nor reason, as to
this subject.

Let
it be observed, if any thing farther is necessary on this point,
that the paschal lamb, is called the passover, because it
represented the destroying angel’s passing over the
children of Israel, while he slew the firstborn of the
Egyptians; and our Lord and his disciples call this lamb the
passover, several times in this chapter; by which it is
demonstrably evident, that they could mean no more than that the
lamb sacrificed on this occasion was a memorial of, and
Represented, the means used for the preservation of the
Israelites from the blast of the destroying angel. .....

But
let it be observed that, in the Hebrew, Chaldee, and
Chaldeo-Syriac languages, as used in the Bible, there is no term
which expresses to mean, signify, denote, though both the Greek
and Latin abound with them: hence the Hebrews use a figure, and
say, it is, for, it signifies . So Gen. 41:26, Gen. 41:27. The
seven kine Are (i.e. represent) seven years.

Thus
Christ took the bread and held it up, that his disciples might
observe it: and blessed it; or asked a blessing over it, and
upon it, or rather blessed and gave thanks to his Father or it,
and for what was signified by it; and prayed that his disciples,
whilst eating it, might be led to him, the bread of life, and
feed upon him in a spiritual sense; whose body was going to be
broken for them, as the bread was to be, in order to obtain
eternal redemption for them: so it was common with the Jews, to
ask a blessing on their bread: the form in which they did it was
this (m):

"Blessed
art thou, O Lord, our God, the king of the world, that produceth
bread out of the earth.

What
form our Lord used, is not certain; no doubt it was one of his
composing, and every way suitable to the design of this
ordinance. It was customary also when there were many at table,
that lay down there, however, as Christ and his disciples now
did, for one to ask a blessing for them all; for so runs the
rule (n),

"if
they sit to eat, everyone blesses for himself, but if they lie
along, àçã îáøê
ìëìí, "one blesses for them all".

Moreover,
they always blessed, before they brake:

"Says
Rabba (o), he blesses, and after that he breaks:

this
rule Christ likewise carefully observes, for it follows, and
brake it.

The
rules concerning breaking of bread, are these (p),

"The
master of the house recites and finishes the blessing, and after
that he breaks:--no man that breaks, is allowed to break, till
they have brought the salt, and what is to be eaten with the
bread, before everyone--and he does not break neither a small
piece, lest he should seem to be sparing; nor a large piece,
bigger than an egg, lest he should be thought to be
famished;--and on the sabbath day he breaks a large piece, and
he does not break, but in the place where it is well baked: it
is a principal command to break a whole loaf.

Christ
broke the bread, as the symbol of his body, which was to be
broken by blows, and scourges, thorns, nails, and spear, and to
be separated from his soul, and die as a sacrifice for the sins
of his people: and having so done, he

gave
it to the disciples; which being a distinct act from breaking
the bread, shows that the latter does not design the
distribution of the bread, but an act preceding it, and a very
significant one: and which ought not to be laid aside: according
to the Jewish (q) usages,

"He
that broke the bread, put a piece before everyone, and the other
takes it in his hand; and he that breaks, does not give it into
the hand of the eater, unless he is a mourner; and he that
breaks, stretches out his hand first and eats, and they that
sit, or lie at the table, are not allowed to taste, until he
that blesses, has tasted; and he that breaks, is not allowed to
taste, until the Amen is finished out of the mouth of the
majority of those that sit at table.

And
he took the cup - That is, the cup of wine which was used at the
feast of the Passover, called the cup of “Hallel,” or
praise, because they commenced then repeating the “Psalms”
with which they closed the Passover.

See
Mat. 26:30. This cup, Luke says, he took “after supper”
- that is, after they had finished the ordinary celebration of
“eating” the Passover. The “bread” was
taken “while” they were eating, the cup after they
had done eating.

And
gave thanks - See the notes at Mat. 26:26.

Drink
ye all of it - That is, “all of you, disciples, drink of
it;” not, “drink all the wine.”

Mat.
26:28: For this is my blood - This “represents” my
blood, as the bread does my body.

Luke
and Paul vary the expression, adding what Matthew and Mark have
omitted. “This cup is the new testament in my blood.”
By this cup he meant the wine in the cup, and not the cup itself.
Pointing to it, probably, he said, “This - ‘wine’
- represents my blood about to be, shed.” The phrase “new
testament” should have been rendered “new covenant,”
referring to the “covenant or compact” that God was
about to make with people through a Redeemer. The “old”
covenant was that which was made with the Jews by the sprinkling
of the blood of sacrifices. See Ex. 24:8; “And Moses took
the blood and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the
blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made with you,”
etc. In allusion to that, Jesus says, this cup is the new
“covenant” in my blood; that is, which is “ratified,
sealed, or sanctioned by my blood.” In ancient times,
covenants or contracts were ratified by slaying an animal; by the
shedding of its blood, imprecating similar vengeance if either
party failed in the compact. See the notes at Heb. 9:16. So Jesus
says the covenant which God is about to form with people the new
covenant, or the gospel economy is sealed or ratified with my
blood.

Which
is shed for many for the remission of sins - In order that sins
may be remitted, or forgiven. That is, this is the appointed way
by which God will pardon transgressions. That blood is
efficacious for the pardon of sin:

1.
Because it is “the life” of Jesus, the “blood”
being used by the sacred writers as representing “life
itself,” or as containing the elements of life, Gen. 9:4;
Lev. 17:14. It was forbidden, therefore, to eat blood, because it
contained the life, or was the life, of the animal. When,
therefore, Jesus says that his blood was shed for many, it is the
same as saying that His life was given for many. See the notes at
Rom. 3:25.

2.
His life was given for sinners, or he died in the place of
sinners as their substitute. By his death on the cross, the death
or punishment due to them in hell may be removed and their souls
be saved. He endured so much suffering, bore so much agony, that
God was pleased to accept it in the place of the eternal torments
of all the redeemed. The interests of justice, the honor and
stability of his government, would be as secure in saving them in
this manner as if the suffering were inflicted on them personally
in hell. God, by giving his Son to die for sinners, has shown his
infinite abhorrence of sin; since, according to his view, and
therefore according to truth, nothing else would show its evil
nature but the awful sufferings of his own Son. That he died “in
the stead or place” of sinners is abundantly clear from the
following passages of Scripture: John 1:29; Eph. 5:2; Heb. 7:27;
1Jn. 2:2; 1Jn. 4:10; Is. 53:10; Rom. 8:32; 2Co. 5:15. Mat. 26:29

'
But I say unto you ... - That is, the observance of the Passover,
and of the rites shadowing forth future things, here end.

I
am about to die. The design of all these types and shadows is
about to be accomplished. This is the last time that I shall
partake of them with you. Hereafter, when my Father’s
kingdom is established in heaven, we will partake together of the
thing represented by these types and ceremonial observances - the
blessings and triumphs of redemption.

This
Is (represents) the bread of affliction which our fathers ate in
the land of Egypt. Dan. 7:24. The ten horns Are (i.e. signify)
ten kings. They drank of the spiritual Rock which followed them,
and the Rock Was (represented) Christ. 1Co. 10:4.

And
following this Hebrew idiom, though the work is written in Greek,
we find in Rev. 1:20, The seven stars Are (represent) the angels
of the seven Churches: and the seven candlesticks Are (represent)
the seven Churches.

The
same form of speech is used in a variety of places in the New
Testament, where this sense must necessarily be given to the
word. Mat. 13:38, Mat. 13:39. The field IS (represents) the
world: the good seed Are (represent or signify) the children of
the kingdom: the tares Are (signify) the children of the wicked
one. The enemy Is (signifies) the devil: the harvest Is
(represents) the end of the world: the reapers Are (i.e. signify)
the angels. Luke 8:9. What might this parable Be? Τις
ΕΙΗ η παραβολη
αυτη: - What does this parable Signify? Jn.
7:36. Τις ΕΣΤΙΝ αυτος
ο λογος: What is the
Signification of this saying? John 10:6. They understood not what
things they Were, τινα ΗΝ, what was the
Signification of the things he had spoken to them. Acts 10:17. Τι
αν ΕΙΗ οραμα,
what this vision Might Be; properly rendered by our translators,
what this vision should Mean. Gal. 4:24. For these Are the two
covenants, αυται γαρ
ΕΙΣΙΝ αι δυο
διαθηκαι, these
Signify the two covenants. Luke 15:26. He asked, τι ΕΙΗ
ταυτα, what these things Meant. See
also Luke 8:36. After such unequivocal testimony from the Sacred
writings, can any person doubt that, This bread is my body, has
any other meaning than, This bread Represents my body?

Tertullian
seems to have had a correct notion of those words of our Lord,

“Having
taken the bread, and distributed that body to his disciples, he
made it his body by saying, This is my body, i.e. a Figure of my
body.”

And
said, take, eat, this is my body; in Luke it is added, "which
is given for you", Luke 22:19; that is, unto death, as a
sacrifice for sin; and by the Apostle Paul, 1Co. 11:24, "which
is broken for you"; as that bread then was, and so
expressive of his wounds, bruises, sufferings, and death, for
them. Now when he says, "this is my body", he cannot
mean, that that bread was his real body; or that it was changed
and converted into the very substance of his body; but that it
was an emblem and representation of his body, which was just
ready to be offered up, once for all: in like manner, as the Jews
in the eating of their passover used to say (r) of the unleavened
bread,

äà
ìçîà ãòðéà,
this is "the bread of affliction", which our fathers
ate in the land of Egypt.

Not
that they thought that was the selfsame bread, but that it
resembled it, and was a representation of the affliction and
distress their fathers were in at that time: to which some think
our Lord here alludes: though rather, the reference is to the
passover lamb, which is frequently, in Jewish writings, called
"the body" of the lamb: thus mention being made of the
bringing of the herbs, the unleavened bread, and the sauce
"Charoseth", with other things to the master of the
house, it is added (s):

"and
in the sanctuary (whilst that stood) they bring unto him, âåôå
ùì ôñç, "the body of the
lamb".

Again,
elsewhere (t) it is said, "they bring a table furnished, and
on it the bitter herbs and other greens, and the unleavened
bread, and the sauce, åâåôå ùì
ëáù äôñç "and
the body of the paschal lamb".

And
a little further (u), "he recites the blessing, blessed art
thou O Lord, &c. for the eating of the passover, and he eats,
îâåôå ùì ôñç,
"of the body of the passover".

And
now it is, as if Christ had said, you have had "the body"
of the lamb set before you, and have eaten of it, in
commemoration of the deliverance out of Egypt, and as a type of
me the true passover, quickly to be sacrificed; and this rite of
eating the body of the paschal lamb is now to cease; and I do
here by this bread, in an emblematical way, set before you "my
body", which is to be given to obtain spiritual deliverance,
and eternal redemption for you; in remembrance of which, you, and
all my followers in successive generations, are to take and eat
of it, till I come. The words, "take, eat", show that
Christ did not put the bread into the mouths of the disciples,
but they took it in their hands, and ate it; expressive of taking
and receiving Christ by the hand of faith, and feeding on him in
a spiritual manner, ^

This
is my body (touto estin to sōma mou).

The
bread as a symbol represents the body of Jesus offered for us, “a
beautifully simple, pathetic, and poetic symbol of his death”
(Bruce). But some have made it “run into fetish worship”
(Bruce). Jesus, of course, does not mean that the bread actually
becomes his body and is to be worshipped. The purpose of the
memorial is to remind us of his death for our sins.

John
6

John
chapter 6 is invoked by Rome is attempting to find warrant for her
doctrine of transubstantiation, but which again militates against her
claim to be the infallible teacher of the church. The context of John
6 is that of men seeking physical food. Jesus had just fed them, as a
manifestation of His grace, but when they returned for more, not out
of need but because they wanted a (modern) Jesus who placed the
priority on constant physical satisfaction, The LORD instead tells
them, “Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that
meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall
give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.” (John
6:27). Because they are “carnally minded,” who “mind
the things of the flesh” (Rm. 8:5), and looking for the
physical, then contrary to the women at the well in Jn. 4, when Jesus
leads them to the higher spiritual using metaphorical language
(living water: 4:10, 14 = Jesus, as living bread” in 6:51),
their focus on a literal physical meaning restrains them from
perceiving it’s spiritual counterpart. Therefore, rather than
telling others about the Messiah (4:28, 29), they will walk away with
darkened minds (v. 66). The parallel between Jn. 4 and Jn 6 is clear,
except that in the former Jesus did not explicitly say that He was
the living water, and if He had Roman Catholicism would be likely be
teaching transubstantiation of water.

But
as He did in Jn. 4, Jesus reveals the spiritual meaning of His
metaphor, that as “I live by the Father: so he that eateth me,
even he shall live by me” (v. 6:57), which is by every word of
God (Mt. 4:4), “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh
profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit,
and they are life.” (John 6:63). Peter rightly discern this, as
he states, “thou hast the words of eternal life” which is
entirely consistent with the testimony of Scripture elsewhere,
especially in John, where the means of gaining eternal life is not be
physical consumption of Christ, but by believing in the Son of the
living God, (Jn 3:13,16,36; 5:24; 10:27; 11:25-27) for whom John
gives many physical types.

In
John 1:29, He is “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of
the world.”

In
John 3, Jesus is the likened to the serpent in the wilderness (Num.
21) who must “be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him
should not perish, but have eternal” (vs. 14, 15).

In
John 4, Jesus is the living water, that “whosoever drinketh of
the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water
that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up
into everlasting life” (v. 14).

In
John 5, Jesus is the Divine Son of God “making himself equal
with God”, and the prophesied Messiah (vs. 18, 39).

In
John 6, Jesus is the bread of God “which cometh down from
heaven, and giveth life unto the world.” “..that every
one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting
life: and I will raise him up at the last day” (vs. 35,40).
This bread is called His flesh, “which I will give for the life
of the world” (v. 51). And as He is the “living bread,”
and “the life of the flesh is in the blood,” so the soon
to be crucified Christ is metaphorical bread and blood.

In
John 10, Jesus is “the door of the sheep,”, and the good
shepherd [who] giveth his life for the sheep”, “that they
might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly”
vs. 7, 10, 11).

In
John 12, He is the LORD who Isaiah saw high and lifted up in glory,
when Isaiah uttered the prophecy which as given in it’s
fulfilled sense in Jn. 6 (Is. 6:1-10; Jn. 12:34b-50). To God be the
glory.

In
John 15, Jesus is the true vine. Thus the use of metaphors in Jn. 6
to denote believing and living by the Word of God, and most
essentially Christ, is consistent theologically, culturally and and
grammatically, whereas eating something to gain eternal life is
distinctively pagan. The Jewish passover did not impart life, and
Jesus analogy in Jn. 6 was not to the passover, but the miraculous
bread from Heaven, which gave physical life, which corresponds to
spiritual life under the New Covenant.

If
John 6 is what Rome says it means, then according to v. 53, in order
to have "life in you", which comes by receiving the holy
Spirit (Acts 10:43-47; 11:18; 15:7-9; Eph. 2:1, 5), and to receive
the gift of eternal life, then we would see the apostles preaching to
take part in the Lord supper in order to be born again, and be saved.
Instead, they preached that we are believe on the Lord Jesus, which
is what Jn. 6: 63 confirms is the meaning of v. 53. The apostles
taught how one becomes born again, and so have “life in you”
(Eph. 2:1, 5), is by believing the word of the gospel, that of Christ
crucified and risen again (Eph. 1:13; Acts 10:43-47).

In addition, the Lord
tell us we are to “live by every word which proceedeth forth
from the mouth of God

(Mt. 4:4), and in Jn. 4
He tells us that do His Father's will was in essence His food (v.34).
Then, in Jn. 6:57 the Lord gives us a clear interpretation of how we
are to live by eating His flesh and drinking His blood, by giving us
the example of how He lives, “As the living Father hath sent
me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth Me, even he
shall live by Me. And as Jesus “lived” by every word of
the Father, (Mt. 4:4) not by literally eating His flesh, and His
“meat and drink” was to do His will, (Jn. 4:34), so are
we to live by believing Him, which is shown in following. And that
this is what Jn. 6 speaks of, and to which the rest of Scripture
concurs, that by believing the gospel of the crucified and risen
Christ, men receive His Spirit, and which enables a life of
obedience. “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh
profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit,
and they are life” (Jn. 6:63). So “O taste and see that
the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in Him” (Ps.
34:8. Praise ye the Lord!]

As
the singular word "eat in jn. 6:53 is the common word for
eatings, as an examination of the 97 occurrences of the word reveals,
and it is used metaphorically to denote spiritual eating (Rv.
2:7,14,17,20; 17:16), the verb "eateth" (trōgō
[G5176] of "eateth my flesh" in 6:54, 56-58 is focused upon
by Roman Catholic apologists in asserting it means literal eating, as
it appears to convey the idea of “corrosion or wear; or perhaps
rather of a base of G5167 and G5149 through the idea of a crunching
sound; to gnaw or chew, that is, (genitive case) to eat: - eat.”
(Strong's) In any case, the clear clear usage of trōgō is
to describe a continuous action of eating: "For as in the days
that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying
and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark."
(Mt. 24:38; (cf. Jn. 13:18) And so rather than denoting that Jesus
flesh was of a texture that requires tough chewing, trōgō
easily corresponds to the word for believing in John and elsewhere,
which can denote a present an ongoing state. (Mat. 21:22; Jn. 20:31;
Acts. 16:34; 24:14; Rm. 15:13; 1Pet. 1:8) Thus, consistent with
eating as a metaphor for believing, the believer continuously “chews”
on Christ, the Word of God, as He lives by faith in Him. ^

1
Corinthians 10

In understanding 1 Cor.
10:16-21, we must first look at the context, which (flowing from the
preceding chapter) is that of the need to exercise self-denial, avoid
idolatry, and worship God in Spirit and in truth, to His glory. And
in the beginning of this chapter Paul prefaces what he is about to
teach by using illustrations from the Old Testament which are
analogous to the Christian life. In so doing the spiritual nature of
the physical illustrations used becomes readily apparent. Paul begins
by stating (v. 1),

10:1 Moreover, brethren,
I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were
under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;

2 And were all baptized
unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

3 And did all eat the
same spiritual meat;

And did all drink the
same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that
followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

“Under the cloud”
refers to being under the leading and protective defense of the
pillar of cloud, a symbol of the divine presence, the Holy Spirit
(Ex. 3:21-22; Ps. 105:39; Num. 4:14; cf. Is. 4:5). Having also passed
through the Red Sea, they were also in essence baptized unto, or in
regards to Moses, so that they were to be dead to Egypt and live unto
God by following the Law of Moses, who was a type of Christ.

Ex. 23:20 Behold, I send
an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into
the place which I have prepared. 21 Beware of him, and obey his
voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions:
for my name is in Him. 22 But if thou shalt indeed obey His voice,
and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies,
and an adversary unto thine adversaries. 23 For mine Angel shall go
before thee, and bring thee in unto the Amorites, and the Hittites,
and the Perizzites, and the Canaanites, the Hivites, and the
Jebusites: and I will cut them off.

And the “spiritual
meat” refers to the manna which only fed them physically (it is
called spiritual because it was of supernatural origin). But while
the miraculous foods and water gave them physical sustenance, only
the Word of God could give them spiritual life:

Dt.
32:46, 47 And he said unto them, Set your hearts unto all the words
which I testify among you this day, which ye shall command your
children to observe to do, all the words of this law. For it is not a
vain thing for you; because it is your
life: and through this thing ye
shall prolong your days in the land, whither ye go over Jordan to
possess it.

And in fact, it was only
by obedience to God's word that they even received their supernatural
physical sustenance:

Dt. 8:3 And he humbled
thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which
thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make
thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word
that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.

This is the contrast
which the Lord Jesus spoke of in John 6:49, + 50, when He stated,
“Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat
thereof, and not die”. And thus the promise of the life –
giving Holy Spirit and eternal life is given to whosoever truly
believes the gospel (Acts 2:38; 319, 20; 10:43-48).

Meanwhile, the spiritual
drink spoken of in 10:4 is that miraculously given water which the
Israelites received:

Ex. 17:6 Behold, I will
stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite
the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may
drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel.

Num.
20:11 And Moses lifted up his hand, and with his rod he smote the
rock twice: and the water came out abundantly, and the congregation
drank, and their beasts also (cf. 21:19: The rabbis also had a
legend that the water actually followed the Israelites through the
water-bearing Rephidim rock for 40 years).

Here, just as in
“spiritual meat,” which the Lord confirmed only gave
physical life (Jn. 6:49, 5), the water is called “spiritual
drink” because of it's supernatural creation, not because it
was of spiritual substance under the appearance of normal water.

And we see that the
actual source of the water was the Lord Jesus, the Rock of Israel,
who followed them, as it was He who begat, formed, and led them (cf.
Dt. 32:4, 18, 30, 31, 37; Ps. 78:35), and also led them in the form
of the Angel of Yaweh (Ex. 14:19).

It is important to
realize at this point that the general norm is that physical things
in the Old Testament picture Christ and spiritual things under the
New Covenant. For instance, the physically unblemished Lamb pictures
Christ, the Lamb of God “which taketh away the sins of the
world” (Jn. 1:29, praise the Lord),. And in 1Cor. 10 the
physical manna and drink and the Rock, were not literally the Lord
Jesus, but represented Him, and whom we are to receive in our hearts
by faith in “the gospel of the grace of God” (Acts
20:24). .

“But as many as
received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even
to them that believe on His name.”

“Verily, verily, I
say unto you, he that heareth My word, and believeth on Him that sent
me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but
is passed from death unto life” (Jn. 1:12; 5:24).

“That we should be
to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. In whom ye
also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of
your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed
with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our
inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto
the praise of his glory” (Eph. 1:12-14).

After this beginning
preface, Paul reminds the Corinthians (v. 5ff) that even though these
Israelites had been enlightened, and had tasted of the heavenly gift,
and were guided by the Holy Ghost, And had “tasted the good
word of God, and the powers of the world to come” (such as
Hebrews 6:5 speaks of), yet “with many of them God was not well
pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness” (v. 5),
because they received the grace of God in vain, and fell in unbelief
and idolatry. Forsaking the first commandment, they then broke
others, giving into the sensual lusts of the flesh (Num. 11:4; 31-34;
Ps. 78:27-31; 106. 14, 15) . And being lustful, rebellious and
discontented (they go together), they manifested fleshly murmurings,
and irreverently challenged and mocked God and His Divinely
established authority – to their own destruction. (Ex. 17:1-7;
23:20, 21; Dt. 1:34, 35; 2:16; Num. 14; 21:1 – 8; 25:1-9; Ps.
78:18, 32-34, 56: 106 :26; Heb. 3:17).

The Holy Spirit then
exhorts them and us, ”Wherefore let him that thinketh he
standeth take heed lest he fall” (v.12). That we should not be
complacent or self satisfied, but conscious of our desperate need for
the power and grace of God, and motivated with a single desire to
glorify Him, we should with “purpose of heart” “cleave
unto the Lord” (Acts 15:23). and as a church, “be
edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of
the Holy Ghost” Acts 9:31). .

And that although “we
must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God”
(Acts 14:22), .and though we may and will be sorely tried, yet we are
to take courage because, as the next verses tell us (+ me), “There
hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is
faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are
able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye
may be able to bear it. Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from
idolatry (10:13, 14).

This shows us that the
when we give into temptation we are giving into idolatry, for either
the flesh will be Lord or Christ will be (to us), as well as the
possibility of giving into a form of more formal idolatry. And it
becomes more evident as we go along, that the Corinthians were not
only experiencing temptation to give into their own fleshly desires
(including self deliverance), but also to give into societal
pressures that would be idolatrous. This sets the stage for the next
section which deals with the Lord's supper, and it's application
regarding idolatry.

Paul begins this section
(v. 15) with a statement which indicates that what will follow
requires discernment; “I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I
say”, and it is here that we again will deal with the
unwarranted interpretation of Roman Catholicism regarding 1Cor. 10),
and (briefly) it's application, versus that which finds sound
substantiation in the grammar and the immediate and larger context of
Scripture.

Below
are the Scriptures for section we will be examining most , and as
such i have provided 2 other translations , besides the tried and
true King James version,(KJV) for comparison; the New American Bible
(NAB), and the 18thcentury
Douay-Rheims Bible (DRB).

KJV

NAB

DRB

16
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of
the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the
communion of the body of Christ?

17
For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all
partakers of that one bread.

18
Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the
sacrifices partakers of the altar?

19
What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is
offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?

20
But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they
sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye
should have fellowship with devils.

21
Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye
cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of
devils.

22
Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?

15
I am speaking as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I
am saying.

16
The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in
the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a
participation in the body of Christ?

17
Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body,
for we all partake of the one loaf.

18
Look at Israel according to the flesh; are not those who eat the
sacrifices participants in the altar?

19
So what am I saying? That meat sacrificed to idols is anything?
Or that an idol is anything?

20
No, I mean that what they sacrifice, (they sacrifice) to demons,
8 not to God, and I do not want you to become participants with
demons.

21
You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and also the cup of demons.
You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and of the table of
demons.

22
Or are we provoking the Lord to jealous anger? Are we stronger
than he

10:15}
I speak as to wise men: judge ye yourselves what I say.

{10:16}
The chalice of benediction which we bless, is it not the
communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread which we break,
is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?

{10:17}
For we, being many, are one bread, one body: all that partake of
one bread.

{10:18}
Behold Israel according to the flesh. Are not they that eat of
the sacrifices partakers of the altar?

{10:19}
What then? Do I say that what is offered in sacrifice to idols
is any thing? Or that the idol is any thing?

{10:20}
But the things which the heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to
devils and not to God. And I would not that you should be made
partakers with devils.

{10:21}
You cannot drink the chalice of the Lord and the chalice of
devils: you cannot be partakers of the table of the Lord and of
the table of devils.

{10:22}
Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?

In v. 16, Paul begins by
saying,

Co
10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion2842
of the blood of Christ? The3588 bread which we break, is it not the
communion2842
of the body of Christ 17 For we being
many are one bread, and
one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

It here that many
Catholics would have it read, “is it not the eating of the body
of Christ?” But koino¯nia, does not mean eating, and it is
never translated as that either in the KJV, DRB or the NAB, which
renders it a “sharing. “

And
it is a sharing, “the communion [or fellowship] of the of the
body of Christ”, and the interpretation of this phrase is found
in the next verse(17),
For [or because] we being many are one bread, and one body: for we
are all partakers of that one bread.” Here it is plainly
evident that the “body of Christ” being referred to is
not the elements of the Lord's supper, but the corporate body of
Christ. That is, it is a sharing or communion of the body of Christ
in that the members are communally coming together to commemorate the
Lord's death by the ordinance which He instituted, and by which they
also declare their union with Him. See here
for more on this.

And as he has been doing
previously in this chapter, Paul again goes on to use O.T. examples
to teach N.T. obedience.

18 Behold Israel after
the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers [G2844]
of the altar?

The allusion to to Israel
is pertinent, as it was a physical example of a N.T. spiritual
reality, and the phrase “partakers of the altar” is a key
one. And again the word “partaking” or fellowship is
used, which is koino¯nos (G2844), which is from G2839 (shared by
all), and which is likely from G4862 denoting union); and denotes “a
sharer, that is, associate: - companion, X fellowship, partaker,
partner” [Strongs].

But the depth of meaning
in “partakers of the altar” and in what way they were, is
best understood in the light of the comparison with the Gentilic
sacrifices which follows.

19 What say I then? that
the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols
is any thing?

20 But I say, that the
things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and
not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship [G2844]
with devils.

21 Ye cannot drink the
cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers [3348]
of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.

[Again the word partaking
or fellowship koino¯nos (G2844) is used in v. 20. Then a
different word is used for partaking in v. 21 [3348], which is from
G3326 and G2192, denoting to share or participate; and which can
relate to the physical aspect of eating the sacrifices.]

Verse
19 rhetorically questions whether the idol itself is of any reality,
and hearkens back to 1Cor. 8:4, while the 2nd
question prepares them for 1Cor. 10:25, that they are to not
superstitiously suppose that a thing that once was dedicated to idols
is of any spiritual reality (and thus they may eat of it, but not as
part of a pagan religious ritual).

But most notably, we see
in v. 20 and 21, that the lost, pagan Gentiles, by sacrificing to
devils and eating of the sacrifices as part of their worship, were
having fellowship with the devil whom they sacrificed to. Likewise,
Israel , in v. 18 and 21b, was having fellowship with the LORD (YHWH)
as they sacrificed unto Him, and ate of the sacrifices made unto God.

What is made manifest in
this is that in partaking of the Lord's supper, we are to commemorate
the Lord's sacrificial death, and to do so hypocritically, such as
effectively not recognizing others as members of Christ by uncaring
selfishness, is to actually not commemorate the Lord's sacrificial
death, and is the sin dealt with in 1Cor. 11:17-32. See here
on this.

But what also is
manifest, is that the partaking of the Lord's supper is not that of
eating the Lord's physical body and blood. The Greek not only
militates against rendering v. 16 to mean actually eating the Lord's
physical body, but the context disallows it. V. 17 must be ignored,
and (to be consistent) the partaking in the following verses would
allow Jewish sacrifices to be the LORD's corporeal flesh, as well as
that of the Gentiles to under go some sort of demonic
transubstantiation. Rather than some unBiblical ingesting of the
Lord's body, the Lord's supper is a spiritual communion with each
other and with the Lord, by commemorating His supremely unselfish
death for us, and in a way consistent with that death, as a community
of people dead to self and alive to Him, to serve God and each other.

As
in baptism (by immersion, which is what baptizomeans),
our participation in the Lord's supper declares something that is a
spiritual reality. In Baptism it is our individual union with Christ
in His death and resurrection, and in the Lord's supper it is the
communal worship of the Lord, as as a people bought by His blood,
remembering His death via the elements He used to signify it. ^

1
Corinthians 11

1Corinthians 11: 26-30 we
read (after reiterating part of Luke 22:19,20), "For as often as
ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death
till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink
this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and
blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat
of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh
unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not
discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and
sickly among you, and many sleep."

It
is the latter part, "not discerning the Lord's body" is
used by Roman Catholic apologists who assert that their sin was not
recognizing or reverencing they were consuming the corporal flesh and
blood of Jesus. " transubstantiation". However,
contextually, we see that the problem at hand was that certain
Corinthians were not effectually recognizing their fellow believers
as members of the Lord's body, which Paul elsewhere defines as the
church. (Eph. 1:23,16; 4:4,12,16;. 5:23,30; Col. 1:18,22; 2:11,17,19;
3:15) The context is that some souls were commemorating the utterly
selfless sacrifice of the Lord in an entirely selfish way, that of
over indulging at the love feast of charity, (Jude 1:12) while others
members of the body of Christ were starving. The church as the body
of Christ has "many members," composed together by God in
such a way (some more healthy, wealthy and wise than others) so that
all "the members should have the same care one for another"
(12:24,25). The Corinthian's sin of " not discerning the Lord's
body" was their manifest failure to do just that - treat their
fellow "members" as they would their own bodies, instead of
as if they were enemies. The result was severe chastisement - even
unto death. Such examination of self and repentance is needed today,
as a great transformation in this area is needed. See here
for more exegesis on this.^

Maryolatry

Rome seeks to deny that
it fosters Maryolatry, yet it's own doctrine does, making her an
Heavenly object of earthly devotion of prayer, while in the Bible
only God is the heavenly object of such. It is common among Catholics
to give mnore attention and praise to Mary than the Son of God, by
whom she was created, and later was blessed to become His mother in
His incarnation. However, to call her “Mother of God” is
ontologically incorrect, while the multitude other titles Rome has
allowed or given her seem more numerous than those which belong to
Christ.

Holy
Mary

Holy
Mother of God;

Most
honored of virgins;

Chosen
daughter of the Father

Mother
of Christ;

Glory
of the Holy Spirit

Virgin
daughter of Zion,

Virgin
poor and humble,

Virgin
gentle and obedient,

Handmaid
of the Lord,

Mother
of the Lord,

Helper
of the Redeemed,

Full
of grace,

Fountain
of beauty,

Model
of virtue,

Finest
fruit of the redemption,

Perfect
disciple of Christ,

Untarnished
image of the Church,

Woman
transformed,

Woman
clothed with the sun,

Woman
crowned with stars,

Gentile
Lady,

Gracious
Lady,

Our
Lady,

Joy
of Israel,

Splendor
of the Church,

Pride
of the human race,

Advocate
of grace,

Minister
of holiness,

Champion
of God’s people,

Queen
of love,

Queen
of mercy,

Queen
of peace,

Queen
of angels,

Queen
of patriarchs and prophets,

Queen
of apostles and martyrs,

Queen
of confessors and virgins,

Queen
of all saints,

Queen
conceived without original sin,

Queen
assumed into heaven,

Queen
of all earth,

Queen
of heaven,

Queen
of the universe

From
the “Litany of Loreto”

Mother
of the Church,

Mother
of Divine grace,

Mother
most pure;

Mother
of chaste love;

Mother
and virgin,

Sinless
Mother,

Dearest
of Mothers,

Model
of motherhood,

Mother
of good counsel;

Mother
of our Creator;

Mother
of our Savior;

Virgin
most wise;

Virgin
rightly praised;

Virgin
rightly renowned;

Virgin
most powerful;

Virgin
gentle in mercy;

Faithful
Virgin;

Mirror
of justice;

Throne
of wisdom;

Cause
of our joy;

Shrine
of the Spirit;

Glory
of Israel,

Vessel
of selfless devotion;

Mystical
rose;

Tower
of David;

Tower
of ivory;

House
of gold;

Ark
of the covenant;

Gate
of heaven;

Morning
star;

Health
of the sick;

Refuge
of sinners;

Comfort
of the troubled;

Help
of Christians;

Queen
of the rosary;

And
Mother of God

The Mary of Rome not only
provides special intercession as the Mother of the Son of God and
Queen of Heaven, and is the dispenser of all grace, but is said to be
immaculately conceived, and who gave birth while keeping a hymen
intact, was married but had no sex ("leave" but not
"cleave) and to have bodily rose to Heaven!

Leo XIII, Jucunda
Semper, 1894: "When Mary offered herself completely to God
together with her Son in the temple, she was already sharing with him
the painful atonement on behalf of the human race ... (at the foot of
cross) she willingly offered him up to the divine justice, dying with
him in her heart, pierced by the sword of sorrow."

Pius X, Ad Diem Illum,
1904: "Owing to the union of suffering and purpose existing
between Christ and Mary, she merited to become most worthily the
reparatrix of the lost world, and for this reason, the dispenser of
ALL favors which Jesus acquired for us by his death . . .

Benedict XV, Inter
Sodalicia, 1918: "To such extent did Mary suffer and almost die
with her suffering and dying Son; to such extent did she surrender
her maternal rights over her Son for man's salvation . . that we may
rightly say she redeemed the human race together with Christ."
[maternal rights? To her Creator? By such logic one might say Pilate
provides the Savior of the world, since he provides the orders and
cross by which Jesus died.]

Plus XI, 1935, in a
prayer to close a jubilee, we find the first use of the word
Coredemptrix by a pope: "O Mother of love and mercy who, when
thy sweetest Son was consummating the Redemption of the human race on
in the altar of the cross, didst stand next to him suffering with him
as a Coredemptrix."

Plus XII, in a radio
broadcast in 1946: "Mary, for having been associated with the
King of Martyrs in the ineffable work of human Redemption as Mother
and cooperatrix, she remains forever associated with him, WITH AN
ALMOST UNLIMITED POWER, in the distribution of graces which flow from
the Redemption." http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/popemary.htm

More recently, at his
general audience in St. Peter's Square on 4/9/97, Pope John Paul II
said that Mary uniquely collaborated in the work of salvation.
According to the 4/9/97 Vatican Information Service, the pope stated
that "in union with Christ and yielding to Him, She collaborated
to obtain the grace of salvation for all humanity." He also
said: "Having created man 'male and female,' in the Redemption
too, the Lord wanted to put the New Eve next to the New Adam. ...
Mary, the New Eve, thus becomes the perfect icon of the Church.

With equal truth may it
be also affirmed that, by the will of God, Mary is the intermediary
through whom is distributed unto us this immense treasure of mercies
gathered by God, for mercy and truth were created by Jesus Christ.
Thus as no man goeth to the Father but by the Son, so no man goeth to
Christ but by His Mother....Mary is this glorious intermediary..."
Pope Leo XIII, in Octobri Mense (On the Rosary), Encyclical
promulgated on September 22, 1891, # 4. —
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13ro1.htm

Thus is confirmed that
law of merciful meditation of which We have spoken, and which St.
Bernardine of Siena thus expresses: 'Every grace granted to man has
three degrees in order; for by God it is communicated to Christ, from
Christ it passes to the Virgin, and from the Virgin it descends to
us.'"Pope Leo XIII, in Iucunda Semper Expectatione (On the
Rosary), Encyclical promulgated on September 8, 1894, #5. —
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13ro5.htm

'O Virgin most holy, none
abounds in the knowledge of God except through thee; none, O Mother
of God, attains salvation except through thee; none receives a gift
from the throne of mercy except through thee.'" Pope Leo XIII,
in Adiutricem (On the Rosary), Encyclical promulgated on September 5,
1895, #9. — http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13adiut.htm

"The foundation of
all Our confidence, as you know well, Venerable Brethren, is found in
the Blessed Virgin Mary. For, God has committed to Mary the treasury
of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her
are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is
His will, that we obtain everything through Mary." Pope Pius IX,
in Ubi Primum (On the Immaculate Conception), Encyclical promulgated
on February 2, 1849, #5. —
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ubipr2.htm

When therefore we read in
the writings of Saint Bernard, Saint Bernardine, Saint Bonaventure,
and others that all in heaven and on earth, even God himself, is
subject to the Blessed Virgin, they mean that the authority which God
was pleased to give her is so great that she seems to have the same
power as God. Her prayers and requests are so powerful with him that
he accepts them as commands in the sense that he never resists his
dear mother's prayer because it is always humble and conformed to his
will.... St. Louis de Montfort, in Treatise on True Devotion to the
Blessed Virgin, #27, 246.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/Montfort/TRUEDEVO.HTM

"The power thus put
into her (Mary's) hands is all but unlimited. How unerringly right,
then, are Christian souls when they turn to Mary for help...How
rightly, too, has every nation and every liturgy without exception
acclaimed her great renown, which has grown greater with the voice of
each succeeding century. Among her many other titles we find her
hailed as 'our Lady, our Mediatrix,' (St. Bernard, Serm.II in Adv. 4)
'the Reparatrix of the whole world,' (St. Tharasius, Orat. in
Praesentatione) 'the Dispenser of all heavenly gifts.' (On Off.
Graec., 8 Dec.)." Pope Leo XIII, in Adiutricem (On the Rosary),
Encyclical promulgated on September 5, 1895, #8. —
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13adiut.htm

"Pope Pius XII
explains in an address on the Queenship of Mary, 'when the glorious
Virgin Mary entered triumphantly into heaven and was elevated above
the choirs of angels to the throne of the Most Holy Trinity.' And
then Christ 'placed a triple crown of glory on her head, presented
her to the heavenly court, seated her at his right hand and
pronounced her Queen of the Universe.'...Opus Sanctorum Angelorum,
Formation Letter, "Mary - 'Regina Angelorum'", April, 2000.
— http://www.opusangelorum.org/Formation/Maryregina.html

"In conclusion: we
may say that, in virtue of the divine salvific counsels ordaining a
most perfect redemption, our Lady as Coredemptrix is included with
Christ, the One Mediator." Rev. Fr. Peter Damian M. Fehlner,
F.F.I., professor of Catholic Theology, in Immaculata Mediatrix --
Toward a Dogmatic Definition of the Coredemption. —
http://www.voxpopuli.org/book_2_10.php

(Jer 44:17) "But we
will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth,
to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink
offerings unto her.."

It is indeed grievous
what a autocratic authority can do in extrapolating out of Scripture
a Queen of Heaven and while the Bible rightly honors her it does not
present her as a demi-godess, nor any created being now in Heaven as
an object of prayer. To Christ the Holy Spirit directs us in this
regard, as the only One who "was in all points tempted like as
we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne
of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of
need." (Heb 4:16).

What need have we of
other Heavenly intercessors? The Bible offers NONE, and to pray to
another is an insult to Christ.

(Heb 7:25) "Wherefore
he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by
him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them."

Nowhere in any of the
multitudes of prayers in the Bible does any believer in its God pray
to anyone in Heaven but the God of Heaven.

On
the promulgated perpetual virginity of Mary:

The idea of two becoming
married and yet never actually consummating this physically even once
is without any precedence in Scripture, and is contrary to God's own
description of marriage, which the Lord Jesus affirmed:

(Gen 2:24; cf. mt. 19:5)
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and
shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." God
did not have simply hugs in mind. In 1Cor. 7:2 God commands regular
conjugal relations, except for a short time of fasting and prayer.

Nor is there any
Scriptural evidence that Mary remained a virgin, rather the evidence
all points to Mary having normal relations, as God commands and a
Torah observant Jews would, and which fulfilled prophecy:

"[Joseph] knew her
not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his
name JESUS" Mat 1:25), the only warranted understanding is that
of the most natural conveyance of the text, as well as others which
refer to Jesus brethren and sisters (Mt. 12; 37; 13:55), and which
conform to the prophecy of Ps. 69:8

Why then does Rome insist
it's Queen be a perpetual virgin? It is not because the Bible
warrants it, but it is more appealing to paganism. Autocracies may
engages in teaching for doctrines the commands of men, but we all
must answer to the only true holy and Almighty autocrat.

"An indulgence is
obtained through the Church who, by virtue of the power of binding
and loosing granted her by Christ Jesus, intervenes in favor of
individual Christians and opens for them the treasury of the merits
of Christ and the saints to obtain from the Father of mercies the
remission of the temporal punishment due for their sins." The
Church does this not just to aid Christians, "but also to spur
them to works of devotion, penance, and charity" (CCC 1478).

"I constantly hold
that there is a Purgatory, and that the souls therein detained are
helped by the suffrages of the faithful." (The Trentine
Creed, of Pius IV, A.D. 1564. Roberts, A., Donaldson, J., &
Coxe, A. C. (1997). The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. VIII : Translations
of the writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. Fathers of the Third
and Fourth Centuries: The Twelve Patriarchs, Excerpts and Epistles,
The Clementina, Apocrypha, Decretals, Memoirs of Edessa and Syriac
Documents, Remains of the First Ages. (643).

"All who die
in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are
indeed assured of their eternal salvation, but after death they
undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to
enter the joy of heaven." (Catechism of the Catholic Church,
paragraph 1030).

"The truth has
been divinely revealed that sins are followed by punishments. God's
holiness and justice inflict them. Sins must be expiated. This may be
done on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and trials of this
life and, above all, through death. Otherwise the expiation must be
made in the next life through fire and torments or purifying
punishments." (The Second Vatican Council, p. 63).

One can receive only one
plenary indulgence per day, and must renounce all sins, go to
confession and communion within fifteen days before or after
obtaining the indulgence, and pray for the intentions of the Holy
Father.

The idea is that even
believers must suffer temporal punishment for their unconfessed sins,
here or in the here after, and that indulgences will shorten that
time. The way indulgence work is that the RCC supposes it has a
treasury of merits stored up which it's adherents can withdraw by
performing (usually perfunctorily) a prescribed practice, such as ,

Assisting with devotion
at the procession of the holy Rosary (7 years and 7 quarantines of
indulgence); Or "with faith, piety and love" saying
"My lord and my God" at the elevation of the host during
Mass (7 years); Kissing the Pope's (300-day indulgence, but a
bishop's gets only 50); Ascending the holy stairs in Rome on one's
knees, "whilst meditating on the passion of our Lord Jesus
Christ" (9 years per step). Pope Paul IV even said one could
even get by watching a RC Mass on TV.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,834734,00.html

http://www.circleofprayer.com/secret34.html

In contrast, the Bible
declares that those who truly repent and believe on the Lord Jesus of
salvation, abasing themselves as unworthy sinners who are
utterly destitute of any means of either escaping Hell fire or of
meriting Heaven, but cast all their faith upon the Lord Jesus and His
atoning blood to save them, and who die in the faith, are washed,
sanctified, and “justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and
by the Spirit of our God” (1Cor. 6:11), and go immediately into
the presence of the Lord at death, or when the rapture occurs:

(Luke 23:43) "And
Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be
with me in paradise."

(2 Cor 5:8) "We
are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body,
and to be present with the Lord."

(1 Th 4:17) "Then
we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them
in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be
with the Lord."

In the case of the
penitent thief, surely we are not to suppose that a few hours on the
cross was what purified this man enough that he could go directly
with God? Rather, his cry for salvation, out of a broken heart
and a poor and contrite spirit (Ps. 34:18) brought him slavation, and
the imputed righteousness of Christ *Rm. 4 ― 5:1). And if 1
Cor. 5:8 only refers to Paul and “canonized saints,” then
surely he would have made a distinction between himself and other,
less sanctified saints [all believers in the New Testament are
“called saints,” Rm. 1:7; 1Cor. 1:2]. But he tells the
Corinthians, who needed the most work, that if the rapture occurred
then they would go to be the Lord as well (1Cor. 15; cf. 1Thes.
4:17). As concerns the latter, the idea that souls who die in grace
must be further purified before they can dwell with God militates
against the incorruptible condition that raptured saints obtain, "For
this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put
on immortality" (1 Cor 15:53). And since we shall be like
Jesus when He shall appear (1Jn. 3:2), and we enter into the
"glorious liberty of the children of God" (Rm. 8:21), then
not only would saints who die before that time be yet absent from the
LORD, but a radical reworking of eschatology would be needed, that
would put the coming of the Lord after all the saints, dead and
alive, have gone through an indeterminate time of purifying. Yet the
Bible speaks of going immediately to be with God, and the rapture as
an event which could be imminent whenever the conditions were met
(2Thes. 2:1-4).

The idea that a further
purification is needed for souls before they can dwell with God is
understandably based upon the realization that God is infinitely holy
and perfectly just, and that evil shall not dwell with Him (Ps. 5:4),
and that one must have holiness to see God (Heb. 12:14). But rather
than having "venial sins" that must be suffered in th next
life, and hearts that must go thru postmortem (after death)
sanctification, as Rome teaches, we see that

1. We are forgiven of all
sins when we become born again (Col. 2:13), and that for those who
die in the faith there is no further punishment, except the loss of
rewards. The only postmortem suffering for saints is that they
will suffer loss of rewards by their works being burned up, such as
which were not done in dependence upon God or not in accordance with
His word or led by His Spirit (1Cor. 3:8-15). But it is his
workswhich are burnt by the fire, not the person being purified.

2. All the verses which
clearly speak of a N.T. believer's postmortem condition (Luke 23:43;
Acts 7:59; 1Cor. 15:52; 2 Cor 5:8; 1 Th 4:17; 1Jn. 3:2) show it is
with the Lord, in whose presence there is fulness of joy (Ps. 16:11).

3. The Bible states that
it is the chastening of the Lord in this life that works to make us
holy (Heb. 12), and keep or bring us back to saving faith, that we be
not "condemned with the world" (1Cor. 11:34), and thus
judgment begins at the house of God (1Pt. 4:17). And in such
texts that deal with the issue of chastening, nothing is even
intimated of a postmortem period of such for New Testament believers,
though different degrees of authority and glory (Mt.
13:43; 16:27; 19:28; Mk. 10:40; 1Cor. 15:41; Rv. 5:4; 20:4) seems
evident, in accordance with every man being rewarded according to his
own labor in the Lord (1Cor. 3:8).

4. It is the flesh
in which no good thing dwells (Rm. 7:18) and which cannot be made
subject to the law of God (Rm. 8:7) that is the problem, but which is
not going to be purified, but is to be crucified (Rm. 6). And it is
those that long to be freed from this "bondage of corruption
into the glorious liberty of the children of God," that "hunger
and thirst after righteousness," rather than to seeking to fufil
their lusts, that constitute true believers. And having
resisted the world, the flesh and the devil, overcoming enough so
that they died in the faith (as the Lord searches the hearts and the
reins in this life: Rv. 2:23), then once they are freed from
their fleshly corruption, then even if they could sin (as did
Lucifier) in the next life, they would not.

What this also means is
that those who suppose they are believers, but who have not had a
"day of salvation" when they know they were forgiven, and
that the Holy Spirit made them alive upon personal repentance
directly to God and faith in the Lord Jesus (Acts 20:21) and His
blood (not confidence in their work or the power of a church), and
who have no overall earnest desire to serve God in accordance with
His word and by His Spirit, and to be holy in heart and deed, and to
see others do so, and or who practice willful sin, have no part
in the Lord Jesus but "shall have their part in the lake which
burneth with fire and brimstone" (Rev. 21:8). In
contrast, "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the
first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they
shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a
thousand years." (Rev 20:6).^

"St.
Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical
books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good
spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture.
The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries...For
example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of
Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the
deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate
criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the
Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history
of the Church at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent
definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this
had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that
persisted up to the time of Trent."

Jerome
states,

"As,
then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but
does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also
read these two volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Eccesiasticus) for the
edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the
Church...I say this to show you how hard it is to master the book of
Daniel, which in Hebrew contains neither the history of Susanna, nor
the hymn of the three youths, nor the fables of Bel and the
Dragon..."(Ibid., Volume VI, Jerome, Prefaces to Jerome's Works,
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs; Daniel, pp. 492-493).

Cardinal
Cajetan (an opponent of Luther) write this in 1532:

"Here
we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old
Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of
Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and
are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and
Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou
disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere,
either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books
reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of
doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according
to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and
Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the
Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for
confirming matters of faith.

Though
Jerome was later persuaded to include them, his prior exclusions show
that such books were not part of the Jewish Scriptures, and that the
canon was far from settled by Rome till Trent.

The
best evidence therefore shows that the apocryphal book were not part
of the Jewish canon, the Scriptures, as often invoked by Jesus and
the disciples, with ancient authorities such as Philo, Josephus,
Origin, Tertullian, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of
Nazianzus, Hilary of Poitiers, Epiphanius, Basil the Great, Jerome,
Rufinus failing to validate them. In addition, a most ancient list of
Old Testament books, that of Melito of Sardis (cf. A.D. 170) includes
none of the apocryphal books (cf. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History
4.26.14)., with the possible exception of the Book of Wisdom, which
inclusion is disputed.

In dealing with any
Biblical subject, the interpretive foundation of opposing positions
must be considered. One on side are those who hold to “Sola
Scriptura” (see here
for more on this), that only the Scriptures are the ultimate
doctrinal authority on earth, these being the only tangible source
for which we have assurance of 100% Divine inspiration. (2Tim. 3:16)
They therefore are bound to evidence from that source that a doctrine
is warranted. Sola Scriptura is often misconstrued (i think often for
polemical purposes) as teaching that the Scriptures contain all that
revelation that can be known, and is the only source one can consider
in seeking or substantiating truth (“Solo Scriptura”),
but this doctrine does not exclude that there can be revelation which
is not written in the Scriptures,(Jn. 21:25) or that the Bible
explicitly contains all there is to know from God. (Rv. 10:4)
Evangelicals themselves often invite believers to “hear”
God speaking to their hearts — especially at the time of the
offering. But this, as well as other supernatural and historical
evidences which may favor a teaching, cannot be contrary to what the
Bible best evidences, nor can a doctrine be held as authoritative if
it fails to have sufficient Scriptural warrant.

On the other side are
those who hold to what is essentially “Sola Ecclesia,”
that the church is ultimately the highest authority, as it is the
sole ultimate authority in spiritual matters. While the Scriptures
affirm that the church does have authority, in Roman Catholicism this
position does not simply mean that the born again church has
authority to teach, and to bind and loose, but that Rome is uniquely
infallible in so officially doing, and so no interpretation can be
correct if it differs with an infallible teaching of Rome. This
doctrine of infallibility (which is not restricted to the Pope) is
itself (primarily) based upon her infallible interpretation of Mt.
16. And by which she defines what constitutes infallible teaching,
though there is no infallible list of all infallibly defined
teachings. Thus Rome defines herself as infallible, and then
infallibly defines what constitutes an infallible teaching, and by
which she disallows herself from ever being wrong in such teaching.
And as it is held by Roman Catholic apologists that one cannot know
of a surety that a spiritual truth is correct apart from the teaching
of Rome, an apriori assent that Rome is infallible would be required
to know for sure that Rome is infallible. Appealing to the Scriptures
as the highest authority previous to that would be condescending to
Sola Scriptura in order to convert one to Sola Ecclesia.

Sola Scriptura rests upon
the evidence that the Scriptures themselves testify that is the
ultimate arbiter of revelation under God as to what is truth. While
the Word of God encompasses more than what is written in Scripture,
the latter is the only tangible class of revelation which is afforded
explicit assurance of complete Divine inspiration, (2Tim. 3:16) and
by which any additional revelation which also claims to be from God
must be tested. (Is. 8:40; Jn. 5:39; Acts 17:11) Moreover, while holy
men of old, moved by the Holy Ghost, added to what had been
previously established as Scripture, (Jer. 45:1) the canon being
evidentially closed, no one can add to it nor subtract from it.
Therefore to hold another “stream” of revelation as equal
in authority to Scripture, is to essentially add to the canon, and
effectively negates a prime ability of the canon, that of separating
“wheat” from “chaff,” and opens the door to a
nebulous cloud of non-codified “church traditions.

Additionally, those who
decree such traditions as equal also presume authority over both.
Hence the term “sola ecclesia.” If the canon were not
closed then such traditions might still be considered as candidates
for the class of Scripture, if warranted by it. However, besides the
evidences against them in that regard, here the problem is not only a
closed canon, but Rome's presumption of declaring herself assuredly
infallible, according to their infallibly-defined criteria, by which
Rome affirms her doctrine of infallibility. Yet it is evident that
even those who did inherit Moses position (Mt. 23:2) did not possess
such assuredly infallibility. (Mk. 7:113; Rm. 10:3)

Papal infallibility also
faces the problem that history manifests that some of Rome's popes
were notably unholy men, including sexually active fornicators and
murders. Rome's response is to invoke the Old Testament institution
of physical decedents of Levi, by which a high priest could, by
reason of his office, utter infallible Divine truth, even if such
were wicked men such as Caiphas was. (Jn. 11:47-52) But under the New
Testament we are not “to think of
menabove
that which is written” (1 Cor. 4:6), and not only is the
priesthood changed, but so is its means of attaining pastoral
leadership, which qualifications disallows any idea that a man such
as Caiphas or otherwise unregenerate or immoral man could be allowed
or remain in a pastoral office. (1Cor. 5:11; 1 Tim. 3:1-7). None of
the popes which even Rome is now ashamed of would remain in office in
the Biblical church, yet Rome states, "It is error to believe
that, if the Pope were a reprobate and an evil man and consequently a
member of the devil, he has no power over the faithful."(Council
of Constance; Constance: Condemnation of Errors, against Wycliffe:
Session VIII, and Hus: Session XV; DNZ:621, 617, 588)
“It is error to believe that, if the Pope were wicked and
reprobate, then he is of the devil and is not head of the Church
Militant since he would not be a member of it.” (Pope
Martin V; . Martin V: "Inter Cunctas et in Eminentis,"
DNZ:646) “Even
if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought not to raise up our heads
against him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom.” (St.
Catherine of Siena, SCS p.201-202, cf. also p.222)Additionally problematic
is the issue of an unbroken line of popes.

Yet this Et cathedra
declaration states, “We declare, say, define, and pronounce
that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human
creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface
VIII)

In addition, the New
Testament church does not have a separate class of sacerdotal priests
to offer up expiational sacrifices, but all believers are
priests,(1Pt. 2:9) with Bishops/Elders, (same office: Titus 1:5-7)
being ordained to oversee them.

As regards the canon, the
reality is that official ecclesiastical decrees are not what makes a
writing scripture, nor what ensure acceptance or establishes a
selection of book (canon) as infallible. Rather, like men of God such
as Moses and the apostles themselves, they are established by power,
as befits the kingdom of God, (1Cor. 4:20) by their unique
accompanying and enduring qualities and Divine attestation.

The Jews were given
stewardship of Scripture, (Rm. 3:2; 9:4) and while they were not
given an explicit command to collate all that was Scripture, yet by
the time of Jesus they seemed to have had only a small degree of
disagreement as to what it consisted of, as it is obvious that in New
Testament times they had to have understood what it (largely, at
least) consisted of. (Mt. 8:4; 19:7,8; 22:24; Mk. 1:44; 7:10; 9:4,5;
10:3,4; 12:10,19,26; 15:28; Lk. 4:21; 24:27,44; Jn. 2:22; 3:14;
7:19,22,,23;38,42; 10:35; 13:18; 17:12; 19:24,28,36,37; 20:9; Acts
1:6; 8:32; Rm. 4:3; 9:17; 10:11; 11:2; Gal. 3:8,22; 4:30; 1Tim. 5:18;
2Tim. 3:16; Ja. 2:8,23; 4:5; 1Pt. 2:6; 2Pt. 1:20, etc.) More here.

We see in Scripture that
its writings came to be established as Scripture as the result of God
directly revealing Himself and or His truth to chosen men of God, who
then originally penned under the inspiration of God of what was
revealed to them. (Ex. 17:14; 34:27; Dt. 17:18; 27:38; 31:19,24;
1Sam. 10:25; 2Chr. 26:22; 2Kg. 22:10,11; Is. 30:7,8; Jer. 30:2;
36:17,28; 51:60; Ezek. 43:11; Hab. 2:2; Jn. 20:31; 2Pet. 1:19-21;
3:15,16; Rv. 1:11; etc.) And which writings were affirmed to be
Scripture by supernatural Divine attestation, (Ps. 78:4,5; Heb.
2:3,4) and by its consistency with previously established revelation,
Acts 17:2; 2Pet. 3:16) and by men who themselves had such
attestation, and by its accompanying and enduring power, (Ps.
19:7-11; 119; Heb. 4:12) especially among those that received it with
the heart it requires, (Is. 66:2) And secondarily, by declarations of
formal councils which largely affirmed what had become evident. But
while ecclesiastical attempts were made (after the death of the last
original apostle and his last work) to formally state all of what
Scripture consisted of — and it was not
until 1546 that the Roman Catholic church finally “infallibly”
defined its canon — yet it is essentially due to the unique and
enduring supernatural qualities of the 66 books of Scripture that
they became established as wholly inspired by God, while the
apocryphal books have largely remained in
obscurity.

Presuming
that we must examine the Scriptures for the warrant of
interpretations also requires that we discern Biblical and
self-evident rules necessary for proper exegesis. These include
examination of the immediate and larger context of the passage at
issue, as well as pertinent grammatical aspects, and its congruity
with the area of substantiated theology to which it pertains. ^